Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-245)
COUNCILLOR MICHAEL
HAINES AND
MR LEE
SEARLES
18 JANUARY 2006
Q240 Chairman: You cannot walk away
from it now!
Mr Searles: Yes, I know. I did
say the words "sledgehammer to crack a nut" and subsequently
it was written down. You actually raised a question before about
whether the Agency actually speaks its voice and tries to get
itself heard in Government. Our view is that it does. We actually
have to really watch out for the Agency sometimes in our dealings
because we feel that it is very effective at trying to get its
voice heard in Government, and I suppose that comment was actually
motivated by the fact that we have got the proposed flooding direction
in PPS25, which we feel is unnecessary. We have got nothing to
fear from the Agency scrutinising local planning applications.
To take flooding as an example, there is a new report on last
year's performance of local authorities on high level target 12
and it basically just continues to show a very much improving
picture in relation to local authority performance, in terms of
deciding applications in the flood plains. Over 95% of applications
are decided in line with Agency advice. The Agency's views are
often upheld in what appeals then take place; something like only
three were decided against the Agency. So the system is actually
working. It began with a fairly low level of coverage in local
plans of the Agency's views, and these issues are now addressed.
They are mainly affecting all plans which have been progressed
in the last year. The development of standing advice has removed
a lot of the small-scale issues, leaving the more significant
ones, and still the number permitted against EA advice has gone
down. So generally speaking we feel, and we will be making this
clear in our response on PPS25, that further directions are all
that is necessary really on that area. So we would question why
it is being sought. That is that point. On the waste point, there
has been a longstanding issue about where waste planning material
considerations end in terms of deciding a proposal for a waste
planning application and where the integrated pollution and prevention
control issues start. We would very much like to see a common
approach in terms of trying to address issues in an integrated
way, because the community does not distinguish between what is
a waste planning issue and a waste health issue, and we want to
try and ensure that resources are aligned and that involvement
takes place at the appropriate stage. I think that comment was
motivated from the fact that quite often that does not happen
in the way we would like and therefore the two issues become divorced.
You cannot get the information.
Q241 Chairman: Does that not raise
in fact a very big issue, because in my part of Lancashire, nearby
to Preston, there has been a fearsome debate about proposals to
build a series of waste transfer stations. The policy which deals
with waste very much involves the Environment Agency, Defra, the
county council, the waste authority and the local authorities,
and it is quite difficult when you have the juxtaposition between
a national desire to deal appropriately and in accordance with
European legislation and national legislation with waste as a
collective and the frictions which then come locally in trying
to work out a plan which local people will acknowledge as acceptable.
It does need somebody to try and hold the ring. Do you think that
is a role which should be advanced for the Environment Agency
in trying to bring parties together, including the public, because
you mentioned the importance of consultation earlier in your remarks,
to try and resolve some of these very big and difficult issues
where, if the reports, for example, last night on the television
were anything to go by, the Government appears to be going to
change its policy on waste, where issues of incineration are going
to become extremely important and where the public under those
circumstances will seek some dispassionate advice to enable them
to come to an informed decision about all of the planning matters
which might be associated with such a development? These are very
big and complex issues. Do you think the Environment Agency should
be playing a stronger, more central role in trying to help people
solve the solution to such issues?
Councillor Haines: The advice
to the Government, presumably, will be on the health aspects related
to incineration. Is that what you are saying?
Q242 Chairman: I can only comment
on what was revealed on the television, but I just make the observation
that in relation to the waste policy the Environment Agency is
right at the heart of it, whether it be in terms of good practice
and following all the national and European legislation or dealing
with the bad practice, fly-tipping, illegal disposal of dangerous
substances, and so on and so forth. They are right at the middle
of the whole of the waste policy of the United Kingdom.
Councillor Haines: Yes, but at
the end of the day the actual waste management policy which is
introduced for that area is going to be one which has gone through
all the democratic processes. The local authority may come to
a decision and it would then be up to the relevant Secretary of
State, if it is taken to that extreme, which I presume it would
be, to come to a decision. It is not dissimilar to the example
you gave about the Thames Gateway earlier on. At the end of the
day, the decision is going to be made at minister level. So the
role of the Environment Agency will be just as one of the participants,
together with the local authorities and the public in the discussion
which takes place in the area where it is to happen through the
regional spatial strategy and the local development framework
system which we now have. I cannot see that the Environment Agency
can step outside of that.
Mr Searles: We basically have
concerns on three levels in relation to the Environment Agency.
I think the answer is, yes, it needs to play a stronger role.
The core issue is, of course, PPS10 on waste, which was introduced
last July. There is a real need for a very strong information
base to underpin the development of both regional, sub-regional,
and local policy. An information base which is notoriously bad
leads to endless conflicts because it can be interpreted in many
different ways. We have views we are developing about the role
of local authorities in relation to strategic waste management
which we will send you separately. So the Agency needs to play
a role in that, formulating plans, securing an information base
at a wider level. Then there is this issue I have mentioned, which
I think is actually the role of the Agency, in terms of responding
to specifics and being there with the local authority and being
a partner. It is there in some places and it is not in others.
Lastly, there is a general sense of frustration, probably through
a lack of Agency staff, on the more local issues around licensing,
enforcement issues, on a day to day basis, and I think there has
been a perceived lack of coverage by Agency staff there. I think
overall it points to perhaps a lack of Agency planners in that
area.
Q243 Mrs Moon: You talked about not
minding the Environment Agency scrutinising planning applications.
I do not know that they actually scrutinise them. Their responsibility
is to comment on them. What we have here is an Agency which is
described as an environmental champion. For many people—and
indeed the CPRE and the RSPB made it quite clear today that they
feel there are not that many environmental champions around and
perhaps sometimes the pressure is on planning departments in particular
to go with the developer and also to not risk costs by turning
down an application if it is going to appeal. Would you not see,
therefore, the Environment Agency as a critical partner for planning
departments in actually flagging up the environmental issues,
the environmental concerns and the long-term risks, again as pointed
out by the CPRE and the RSPB, and the environmental risks to the
planning developments which are proposed? Are they not actually
critical to a holistic analysis of a planning application?
Councillor Haines: I would not
think you would have the risk of costs awarded against you now
if the Environment Agency is saying no and the local authority
then actually—
Q244 Mrs Moon: That is why I am saying
the Environment Agency is a critical partner for you?
Councillor Haines: Yes, exactly,
compared with what it was like five or 10 years ago, when if the
Environment Agency said, "No, there's a risk of flooding,"
you actually did think, "Oh, we will lose that one on appeal."
But now it is a much stronger guidance, so that is good. Could
I just say that, taking their partnership, my local authority
has got a strategic flood risk assessment in place now for its
local development framework with help from the Environment Agency
and its own engineers, which we have got in-house. So again it
comes back to the importance of there being the two bodies, each
with their experts on flooding, so that we can be advised by our
own experts as well as the Environment Agency, which agrees in
our case. So I think that is a good balance and then that can
be seen by the public, that the Environment Agency is agreeing
with the local authority at the strategic level as well.
Q245 Mrs Moon: Just in terms of democratic
accountability, the environment is one of those things which can
easily be a cost-saver, "Let's not do that bit of work because
it's not education and it's not social services," whereas
if you have an outside agency like the Environment Agency coming
in and saying, "No, this must be done," it justifies
for the Department and the local authority that spend?
Councillor Haines: Yes.
Chairman: Thank you, gentlemen, very
much indeed for your evidence. If there is anything further which
occurs to you, do please let us know and thank you again for your
written evidence.
|
